MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD TAB DIRECTIVE SERIES. Date of Issue

Transcription

1 MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD TAB DIRECTIVE SERIES TAB Directive Number TAB D-032 v1 Title Decision Date: 30 November, 2010 Effective Date: 7 February, 2011 Amendments to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology Date of Issue 19 January, 2011 Documents Supplemented or Modified by this Directive MSC Scheme Document Fisheries Assessment Methodology, all versions Status Change Several sections amended Background Rebuilding Timeframes: Currently within the Fisheries Assessment Methodology (FAM) for depleted stocks, there is a requirement for within a specified Relatively long timeframes specified in recent fisheries (e.g. South Africa Hake) prompted a concern that, the current wording in the FAM may not be sufficient to require adoption of best-practice plans in depleted fisheries in order to become certified. ETP Species: The ETP species indicators are currently linked to national and international requirements, and provide no default position when a species is listed as ETP, but there is no national requirement for managing impacts to that species. Habitats and Ecosystems Outcome Performance Indicators under the RBF versus default PISGs: The current version of the FAM contains some inconsistency in the scoring of habitats and ecosystems outcome PIs when using the RBF versus default PISGs, related to use of qualitative versus quantitative data. Intent To modify the Fisheries Assessment methodology so that timeframes for depleted stocks are specified for each Scoring Guidepost level; to account for situations where stocks should be evaluated as Endangered, Threatened, or Protected (ETP) but for which there is no national ETP legislation; and to provide consistency between the Risk Based Framework (RBF) and default Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts (PISGs) in evaluation of Habitat and Ecosystem Outcome indicators. Directive 1. This directive shall be effective for all fisheries entering assessment, and all fisheries in assessment for which no site visit has been announced, as of the 7th of February, Document: TAB D-032: Amendments to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology page 1 of 7

2 Changes to Rebuilding Requirements 2. The following is hereby inserted after paragraph and before paragraph in the Fisheries Assessment Methodology v2.1, or equivalent in other FAM versions: Generation time is defined as the average age of a reproductive individual in a given fish stock. 3. The following hereby replaces Performance Indicator in all versions of the Fisheries Assessment Methodology: Component PI Category PI SG60 SG80 SG100 Outcome Stock Rebuilding (C2) Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock within a specified Where stocks are depleted strategies, which have a reasonable expectation of success are in place. A timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that does not exceed the shorter of 30 years or 3 times its generation time. For cases where 3 generations is less than 5 years, the timeframe is up to 5 years. Monitoring is in place to determine whether the strategies are effective in the stock within the specified Where stocks are depleted strategies are in place. A timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that does not exceed the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the timeframe is up to 5 years. There is evidence that the strategies are stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified Where stocks are depleted, strategies are demonstrated to be stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that will be complete within the specified The shortest practicable timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the depleted stock. 4. As per FCM v6.1 section 3.4, fisheries scoring between 60 and 80 on PI shall be required to fulfil conditions on this Performance Indicator within one certification period. For example, if a fishery has a recovery timeframe of 3 generations, within 5 years, it would be required to adopt a strategy resulting in a recovery time of no more than 2 generations. Document: TAB D-032: Amendments to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology page 2 of 7

3 Changes to ETP Species Requirements 5. The following hereby replaces paragraphs to in the Fisheries Assessment Methodology v2.1 or equivalent in other versions ETP Species Outcome Performance Indicator (PI 2.3.1) ETP (endangered, threatened or protected) species are defined as follows: a. Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation; b. Species listed in the binding international agreements given below: 1) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Appendix I. Guidance: Species listed under CITES Appendix I shall be considered ETP species, unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the fishery under assessment is not endangered. For example, if a species is listed in CITES Appendix I because it is endangered in the Pacific, and the fishery under assessment is catching the Atlantic stock which is not endangered, then the stock does not have to be assessed under the ETP component Species and Stocks other than those defined in shall be assessed under Retained or Bycatch Species components of the assessment tree. Examples of species/stocks that should be assessed under Retained or Bycatch Species, but for which confusion may exist include: species on non-binding lists (e.g. the IUCN Red List) species recognized at intergovernmental level (e.g. FAO International Plans of Action) Legislation and agreements may not always contain requirements for protection and. Where there are requirements for protection and, provided through the national legislation or binding international agreements defined in 7.4.1, scoring shall reflect the likelihood that the fishery meets these requirements and its likelihood of causing unacceptable impacts, using the following guidance to interpret unacceptable impacts : i. At SG60, where it is likely that the fishery meets the requirements, there is some evidence that requirements for protection and are being achieved. ii. At SG80, where it is highly likely that the fishery meets the requirements, there would be direct demonstration that requirements for protection and are being achieved iii. At SG100, there should be full compliance with all requirements, negligible mortality of ETP species from the fishery. In addition, if there are no ETP species caught in the fishery then the fishery would meet the 100 SG Where there are no requirements for protection and, provided through national legislation or binding international agreements defined in 7.4.1, the element in SG referring to such requirements shall not be scored and the term unacceptable impact shall be interpreted as impacts which hinder recovery or of ETP species/stocks, using the following guidance: i. At SG60, known direct effects of the fishery are unlikely to hinder recovery or of ETP species/stocks Document: TAB D-032: Amendments to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology page 3 of 7

4 ii. At SG80, known direct effects of the fishery are highly unlikely to hinder recovery or of ETP species/stocks iii. At SG100, there is a high degree of certainty that there are no significant detrimental effects (direct and indirect) of the fishery on the recovery of ETP species. In addition, if there are no ETP species caught in the fishery then the fishery would meet the 100 SG iv. the terms likely, highly likely, and high degree of certainty shall correspond to probabilities of unacceptable impacts of 30%, 20%, and 10%, respectively. v. Certification Bodies shall provide quantitative evidence of the degree of impact of the fishery on ETP species. vi. If it is not possible to provide quantitative evidence, then the Risk Based Framework (RBF) shall be used to evaluate Performance Indicator vii. If the RBF is used to score PI , both the SICA and PSA methodologies shall be conducted, and MSC scores determined based on the PSA, regardless of the SICA outcome. viii. Only in these cases where no requirements for protection and of ETP species are provided through national ETP legislation or binding international agreements may the Risk Based Framework be used to score Performance Indicator ETP Species Management Strategy Performance Indicator (PI 2.3.2) All ETP Management Strategy PI scoring guideposts refer to the need to minimise mortality. When scoring these SGs, all sources of direct mortality shall be considered, including, but not limited to direct deaths and injuries leading to death Where there are requirements of protection and provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements, the ETP species management strategy for the fishery under assessment shall be evaluated under PI Where there are no requirements of protection and provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements, the ETP species management strategy for the fishery under assessment shall be evaluated under PI Alternate: Document: TAB D-032: Amendments to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology page 4 of 7

5 Performance Indicator Alternate Component PI Category PI SG60 SG80 SG100 ETP Species Manageme nt strategy 2.3.2alterna te There is a strategy in place for managing ETP species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. There are measures in place that are expected to ensure the fishery does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). There is a partial strategy in place that are expected to ensure the fishery does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is a strategy in place for managing ETP species, to ensure the fishery does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. Document: TAB D-032: Amendments to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology page 5 of 7

6 Consistency of treatment of the P2 components, habitats and ecosystems. 6. The following changes are hereby made to sections 7.5 and 7.6 of the Fisheries Assessment Methodology V2.1 or equivalent sections of other FAM versions. The changes to the FAM text are given below, with additions in underline, and deletions in strikethrough: Knowledge of the structure and role of habitats is often very limited, and there is not general or widespread agreement on the equivalent of targets and limits for fishery impacts. For the Habitats Component, guidance for use of the terms unlikely, highly unlikely and evidence for in SG60, SG80 and SG100 is given in Table 5 below: Table 5. Guidance for terms unlikely, highly unlikely and evidence for Habitats Component SG60 unlikely SG80 highly unlikely SG100 evidence Intended probability interpretation 40% probability that the true 30% probability that the true 20% probability that the true Kinds of evidence Plausible argument, across a range of analogy from similar situations with limited direct observations from the fishery (e.g. qualitative or general observations). Substantially relies on qualitative assessment and expert judgement. Plausible argument and interpretation of direct observations across a range of analogy from similar situations that is supported by significant direct observations from the fishery. Relies on an about even balance of qualitative assessment/expert judgement and quantitative assessment. Quantitative inclusion of uncertainty and reasonable alternative hypotheses. Based mainly on direct observations from the fishery, with limited reliance on analogy. Substantially relies on quantitative assessment The Where qualitative analysis and/or expert judgements are used in scoring a fishery at the SG60 and SG80 levels, this should be approximately equivalent to the quantitative probability interpretation given above, and the justification for this equivalence should be provided. Plausible argument should be agreed across a range of informed viewpoints, and not just one of many viewpoints. The range of informed viewpoints or alternative hypotheses could be used to make qualitative judgements about the probability interpretation of the SG. Using the SICA to assess these PIs is one such means of obtaining the above-described range of viewpoints and constructing a plausible argument. Document: TAB D-032: Amendments to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology page 6 of 7

7 7.6.6 For the Ecosystem Component, guidance for use of the terms unlikely, highly unlikely and evidence for in SG60, SG80 and SG100 are shown in Table 6 below: Table 6. Guidance for terms unlikely, highly unlikely and evidence for Ecosystem Component SG60 unlikely SG80 highly unlikely SG100 evidence Intended probability interpretation 40% probability that the true 30% probability that the true 20% probability that the true Kinds of evidence Plausible argument, across a range of analogy from similar situations with limited direct observations from the fishery (e.g. qualitative or general observations). Substantially relies on qualitative assessment and expert judgement. Plausible argument and interpretation of direct observations across a range of analogy from similar situations that is supported by significant direct observations from the fishery. Relies on an about even balance of qualitative assessment/expert judgement and quantitative assessment. Quantitative inclusion of uncertainty and reasonable alternative hypotheses. Based mainly on direct observations from the fishery, with limited reliance on analogy. Substantially relies on quantitative assessment The Where qualitative analysis and/or expert judgements are used in scoring a fishery at the SG60 and SG80 levels, this should be approximately equivalent to the quantitative probability interpretation given above, and the justification for this equivalence should be provided. Plausible argument should be agreed across a range of informed viewpoints, and not just one of many viewpoints. The range of informed viewpoints or alternative hypotheses could be used to make qualitative judgements about the probability interpretation of the SG. Using the SICA to assess these PIs is one such means of obtaining the above-described range of viewpoints and constructing a plausible argument. --ENDS-- Document: TAB D-032: Amendments to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology page 7 of 7